Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
To: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date: 2004-04-22 03:08:11
Message-ID: 20040422030811.GB6727@dcc.uchile.cl
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 11:47:11PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Joe Conway wrote:

> > - dblink-type capability should someday make it into the backend, albeit
> > in the form of something compliant to the SQL/MED spec. This is
> > standard functionality in many of the RDBMSs that Postgres users
> > migrate from, and it is needed by enterprise users.
>
> dblink isn't an integrated replication solution, it is a standalone one
> ... to date, I have not seen one replication solution that solves all the
> issues, and unless someone comes up with the be all, end all replication
> solution, none of them should be considered 'part of the backend' ...

You are thinking of dbmirror, while Joe talks about dblink. It's
orthogonal functionality ...

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Cuando miro a alguien, más me atrae cómo cambia que quién es" (J. Binoche)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2004-04-22 03:08:24 Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2004-04-22 03:08:07 Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions